College cost calculator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| startDate | No | Optional date the first year starts, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds the start date of each year to byYear, plus startDate and endDate for the whole program. It only labels the years; the costs do not change. | |
| annualCost | Yes | ||
| inflationPct | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / annualCost / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / years / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / startDateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional date the first year starts, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds the start date of each year to byYear, plus startDate and endDate for the whole program. It only labels the years; the costs do not change.",
+ "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent calculation. The description adds no behavioral context such as how inflation is applied, what assumptions are made, or what the result represents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, so it is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to front-load any useful information about the calculation being performed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial projection tool with four parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the calculation model, output shape, or how the parameters interact from this text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. Critical semantics such as whether annualCost is in current or future dollars, how inflationPct defaults or compounds, and whether years can be fractional are left entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, 'converters_college_cost', with no additional specificity. It does not clarify whether it projects four-year costs, applies inflation, or compares to siblings like converters_529 or converters_student_loan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is the vague notion of calculating college costs, which the tool name already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.